Wynton Marsalis

Pollyanna

Platinum Member
As part of my Drummerworld-inspired jazz education, I'm wondering about Wynton M. I know he's annoyed a lot of jazz people with some closed-minded attitudes about what constitutes good or "valid" jazz.

YouTube just recommended this Wynton clip to me:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VTvhcbrUaSI ... he and his band are tearing it up, including Elvin on fire at the back.

What I don't understand is that the players are really going off with all the syncopation, turnarounds and modes, yet I always thought hard bop was the kind of thing he rebelled against. Am I missing something or did he have a change of heart after this clip was made?

Can anyone enlighten?

Cheers

P
 
As much as I like a lot of jazz, I find out that I no longer can define the term. If you add one instrument it's no longer jazz but prog. jazz or if you play a certain feel or speed them its Smooth Jazz. My sister once told me there was no such thing as country music. Just country stations(radio). I just listen to music and if I like it I like it regardless of the name of the genre.
 
The important thing is this, Did You Like It? Well, Did You Polly?
If you did then all is right with the world.
I liked it and I don't care what Wynton and anyone else has said about Jazz.
Talk is cheap, Music speaks for itself!
 
Wynton's main dislikes are of free jazz and fusion. In essence, his opinions are just a regurgitation of those of Stanley Crouch, the lamest excuse for a "jazz historian" of all time.

I'll take a look at that clip in a little. As much as I dislike Wynton's attitude, his album "Black Codes From The Underground" is pretty solid. Kenny Kirkland (RIP) and Tain Watts shine in particular. That's about all I've heard of his music tbh.
 
Dan, I think you'll like it .. after all, Elvin's playing :)

Yes Bob, I enjoyed it plenty.

GD, in some ways I agree but a lot of music kind of screams its genre at me. Having said that, most of my favourite groups are eclectic - mixing up grooves, sounds, dynamics, arrangements, moods etc.

On the face of it, I can see where Wynton's coming from but it seems most people think he's romanticising older jazz at the expense of vital new forms. It's as though he wants to exclude free jazz from "the club" in the same way as the swing guys wanted to do to bop. I'm surprised that he goes as far as to play hard bop. It's not like there's a hard and fast line between edgier hard bop and free.

In the end I guess genres can only tend to go three ways - more extreme until it becomes avant garde, more spare until it becomes minimalist or look for the sweet spots within and between genres.
 
I personally find all the bickering about what "real" jazz is - in particular by great players - to be unbecoming of the music, in a way. Just play, say your piece, and let other players say their piece. It seems like a whole heap of pointless "horn measuring" to go around that mulberry bush time and again.
 
I like him, I believe he deserves the respect and acclaim that he gets, he is a fantastic sax player, one of the best I've ever seen.

He was an integral part of my education as a brass musician and I don't resent it.

I do however find him to be a bit easy listening most of the time, he composes some great journeys musically, he tells a story and tells it well, but I'd prefer to listen to some wild, chaotic, fun free jazz when I'm in a jazz mood, Wynton isn't fun in my kind of way of fun.
 
I like him, I believe he deserves the respect and acclaim that he gets, he is a fantastic sax player, one of the best I've ever seen.

I didnt realize he played Sax? Anyhow, great trumpet player, and a highly opinionated and arrogant person in my view.

...
 
I didnt realize he played Sax? Anyhow, great trumpet player, and a highly opinionated and arrogant person in my view.

...

He earns a fortune and has very rich heritage. He helped a lot in the reconstruction of New Orleans and while he is arrogant, I'd say it's more pretentious than anything else. A lot of the time it is a case of he does actually know what he is talking about, I don't mean everyone should bow down and just agree with him on everything, but a lot of his critics have hardly read a thing he has wrote on jazz. He is a prestigious teacher at a very prestigious school.
 
He earns a fortune and has very rich heritage. He helped a lot in the reconstruction of New Orleans and while he is arrogant, I'd say it's more pretentious than anything else. A lot of the time it is a case of he does actually know what he is talking about, I don't mean everyone should bow down and just agree with him on everything, but a lot of his critics have hardly read a thing he has wrote on jazz. He is a prestigious teacher at a very prestigious school.

He might be all the things he is, but for a jazzman to talk down other view points is quite.. how should I put it..unjazzy?

So I'd say he's a phenominal player and perhaps a significant jazz historian. Historians never agree with each other because everyone's got a different version.. like the music itself.

My issue with him is that he tries to come across like the high priest of jazz or something.... like the Chairman of Jazz Inc.. I dont like that. Jazz cant have a supreme leader. I dont think Parker, Coltrane or Miles ever thought of themselves in that way.

Conversly, I do appreciate his tremendous virtuosity and I admire the fierce passion he has for his music.

...
 
A lot of the time it is a case of he does actually know what he is talking about, I don't mean everyone should bow down and just agree with him on everything, but a lot of his critics have hardly read a thing he has wrote on jazz.

How do you qualify these statements?

His contribution to Ken Burns' Jazz was was the single most watched jazz commentary of the past 30 years. Almost anyone who cares knows what this guy is all about. The famed Marsalis big mouth is hardly encased in a vacuum seal nor are the larger number of his better known perspectives even within his own intellectual property. In fact for many years his jazz history pontifications were such nonsense that the research wing of the old International Association for Jazz Education used to spend the first half hour of each convention correcting the baloney this guy randomly inserted as fact the year before. The reason I know this is because one of those researchers was my old man.

As for the bickering issue, it's beyond all that. Jazz only survives for the next 1000 years via its correct insertion in history. Since World War II thousands of educators have been documenting the contribution of jazz to 20th century culture as if they were putting aside valuable treasure for eventual burial to be hopefully discovered by future civilizations that would appreciate it. They fought 1000 battles with the classical crowd and education bureaucrats to have the music granted its rightful and equal place. In fact a lot of incredible people lost their jobs fighting those old battles.

So imagine then, one of the most privleged /albeit talented/ people of his generation swooping down from the sky to tell the world he had come to save jazz, while brushing aside the very existence of all those other guys, and simultaneously claiming to have reinvented what was a perfectly good wheel while calling Stanley Crouch's anger laden politically motivated intellectual property his own thoughts.

The whole thing is a joke. And the only reason it's been allowed to perpetuate is because a bunch of clueless self righteous jazz aficiandos parading as journalists and social commentators have convinced thousands of even lazier journalists and social commentators that this guy knows what he's talking about, while punking all the true educators who did the real work that no one now wants to know about. This isn't a stupid difference of opinion. This is a bunch of self important pseudo intellectual hacks diverting a river for reasons that have very little to do with music, and because they think it makes them appear smart and cool.

And before we get too far into it, let me clarify. Yeah the guy can play a trumpet, although he is in no way an important innovator. And rule #1 is when you play jazz you don't get to the top of the pile unless your musical voice is entirely your own. That point is not up for debate nor will it ever be. In fact it is the most uncontestable part of being a jazz musician...period. Therefore, wonderful non innovative jazz musicians don't get first dibs on the crusader gimmick. If such was the criteria then Doc Severinsen would have been called the savior of jazz back in the 1970s. But of course we know that would have been silly. Well this is really no different except that Severinsen probably reached more people in a night playing on Johnny Carson then Marsalis reaches in a month.

Nor is jazz about being popular. Except for the swing era it has never been. Therefore there isn't a serious jazz musician in the known universe who cares if a bunch of Lady Gaga loving music bottom feeders like them or not. Those kinds of people/ and some of them are among the most important in my life/ only care about the elevation of the music itself, and that history records that they did all they could do to insure that elevation.

So instead, much of that almost spiritual journey has been replaced by a series of nonsensical opinions parading as facts, that in the past 25 years have become so much a part of the psyche of this music as to have rewritten one the richest historical legacies of the past 100 years.

And people really ask why so many don't like this guy?
 
..

I was trying to be polite and diplomatic, but yup, Matt's nailed it.

from Wiki;

Jazz Critic Scott Yanow praised Marsalis's talent but questioned his "selective knowledge of jazz history considering post-1965 avant-garde playing to be outside of jazz and 1970s fusion to be barren."

Trumpeter Lester Bowie said of Marsalis, "If you retread what's gone before, even if it sounds like jazz, it could be anathema to the spirit of jazz."

In his 1997 book Blue: The Murder of Jazz Eric Nisenson argues that Marsalis's focus on a narrow portion of jazz's past stifled growth and innovation.

In 1997 pianist Keith Jarrett criticized Marsalis saying "I've never heard anything Wynton played sound like it meant anything at all. Wynton has no voice and no presence. His music sounds like a talented high-school trumpet player to me."


In 1986, in Vancouver, Miles Davis stopped his band to eject Marsalis, who had appeared onstage uninvited. Echoing Clarke's comment, Davis said "Wynton can't play the kind of shit we were playing", and twice told Marsalis to leave the stage saying "Get the @#$ off."[16]

Besides insinuating that Davis was pandering to audiences, Marsalis said Davis dressed like a "buffoon"

Trumpeter Lester Bowie called Marsalis "brain dead", "mentally-ill" and "trapped in some opinions that he had at age 21...because he's been paid to.


So yea, other opinions exist and from some very credible sources.

..
 
I qualify the statement with observations, if you want me to link them to some tabloid, I can't, but it is my experience that most of the people that claim to have an opinion on it have borrowed it, a lot of people that criticize him do it because it is the popular thing to do in the jazz community, not that I'm throwing accusations at you over that.

I don't agree with every statement he has ever made, but he is a big advocate of classical and jazz music. As far as the not caring whether or not it is popular, that is bull. There is nothing wrong with something being popular, if a younger audience can truly appreciate something it is nothing but beneficial. Perhaps jazz musicians should care more about making others interested in what they do. I agree that it doesn't matter if they don't as if you love something, you love it, but that doesn't mean it isn't worth trying to introduce others to it, that kind of attitude is why a lot of jazz musicians are considered snobs.

I don't believe he is the greatest jazz "historian" he is very selective in his opinions of what is and isn't jazz, but as for a composer and a musician, too many people take stabs at his person, judging him for his opinion and completely forgetting about the wonderful music he creates. I hate hearing from jazz musicians who pipe up one minute that it is all about the music and the next minute lay hate on Wynton for something he said, then to turn around and saying that the Pulitzer he won was deserved. If it is about the music, it's about the music, and he is doing a lot for that particular style of jazz.

How do you qualify these statements?

His contribution to Ken Burns' Jazz was was the single most watched jazz commentary of the past 30 years. Almost anyone who cares knows what this guy is all about. The famed Marsalis big mouth is hardly encased in a vacuum seal nor are the larger number of his better known perspectives even within his own intellectual property. In fact for many years his jazz history pontifications were such nonsense that the research wing of the old International Association for Jazz Education used to spend the first half hour of each convention correcting the baloney this guy randomly inserted as fact the year before. The reason I know this is because one of those researchers was my old man.

As for the bickering issue, it's beyond all that. Jazz only survives for the next 1000 years via its correct insertion in history. Since World War II thousands of educators have been documenting the contribution of jazz to 20th century culture as if they were putting aside valuable treasure for eventual burial to be hopefully discovered by future civilizations that would appreciate it. They fought 1000 battles with the classical crowd and education bureaucrats to have the music granted its rightful and equal place. In fact a lot of incredible people lost their jobs fighting those old battles.

So imagine then, one of the most privleged /albeit talented/ people of his generation swooping down from the sky to tell the world he had come to save jazz, while brushing aside the very existence of all those other guys, and simultaneously claiming to have reinvented what was a perfectly good wheel while calling Stanley Crouch's anger laden politically motivated intellectual property his own thoughts.

The whole thing is a joke. And the only reason it's been allowed to perpetuate is because a bunch of clueless self righteous jazz aficiandos parading as journalists and social commentators have convinced thousands of even lazier journalists and social commentators that this guy knows what he's talking about, while punking all the true educators who did the real work that no one now wants to know about. This isn't a stupid difference of opinion. This is a bunch of self important pseudo intellectual hacks diverting a river for reasons that have very little to do with music, and because they think it makes them appear smart and cool.

And before we get too far into it, let me clarify. Yeah the guy can play a trumpet, although he is in no way an important innovator. And rule #1 is when you play jazz you don't get to the top of the pile unless your musical voice is entirely your own. That point is not up for debate nor will it ever be. In fact it is the most uncontestable part of being a jazz musician...period. Therefore, wonderful non innovative jazz musicians don't get first dibs on the crusader gimmick. If such was the criteria then Doc Severinsen would have been called the savior of jazz back in the 1970s. But of course we know that would have been silly. Well this is really no different except that Severinsen probably reached more people in a night playing on Johnny Carson then Marsalis reaches in a month.

Nor is jazz about being popular. Except for the swing era it has never been. Therefore there isn't a serious jazz musician in the known universe who cares if a bunch of Lady Gaga loving music bottom feeders like them or not. Those kinds of people/ and some of them are among the most important in my life/ only care about the elevation of the music itself, and that history records that they did all they could do to insure that elevation.

So instead, much of that almost spiritual journey has been replaced by a series of nonsensical opinions parading as facts, that in the past 25 years have become so much a part of the psyche of this music as to have rewritten one the richest historical legacies of the past 100 years.

And people really ask why so many don't like this guy?
 
...

Wynton has done a lot more talking and expounding than your average jazz luminary, so it follows that people will react not not just the to music but also to his words.

I also think more people think of him as a good player than not.

...
 
I qualify the statement with observations, if you want me to link them to some tabloid, I can't, but it is my experience that most of the people that claim to have an opinion on it have borrowed it, a lot of people that criticize him do it because it is the popular thing to do in the jazz community, not that I'm throwing accusations at you over that.

I don't agree with every statement he has ever made, but he is a big advocate of classical and jazz music. As far as the not caring whether or not it is popular, that is bull. There is nothing wrong with something being popular, if a younger audience can truly appreciate something it is nothing but beneficial. Perhaps jazz musicians should care more about making others interested in what they do. I agree that it doesn't matter if they don't as if you love something, you love it, but that doesn't mean it isn't worth trying to introduce others to it, that kind of attitude is why a lot of jazz musicians are considered snobs.

I don't believe he is the greatest jazz "historian" he is very selective in his opinions of what is and isn't jazz, but as for a composer and a musician, too many people take stabs at his person, judging him for his opinion and completely forgetting about the wonderful music he creates. I hate hearing from jazz musicians who pipe up one minute that it is all about the music and the next minute lay hate on Wynton for something he said, then to turn around and saying that the Pulitzer he won was deserved. If it is about the music, it's about the music, and he is doing a lot for that particular style of jazz.

Did you read a single word I posted?

Man, I've liked you on other threads, but it appears as if you retained nothing from a very detailed post. Again... and I cannot make it any clearer than this. Those seriois musicians I mentioned absolutely do not care what others think about what they're doing or other's personal opinions of them. That's just a fact. Yes it may be unfortunate that you have such a negative opinion of musicians and educators who made actual contributions who would question this person based on actual facts and real observations/experiences. My old man used to hang with those guys. My grandfather used to play with Ellis/ the class of that family/ They know the real scoop and I'll take their word for it alongside the obvious lack of innovation alongside a genuine ability to perform on a trumpet.
 
Trumpeter Lester Bowie said of Marsalis, "If you retread what's gone before, even if it sounds like jazz, it could be anathema to the spirit of jazz."

In 1997 pianist Keith Jarrett criticized Marsalis saying "I've never heard anything Wynton played sound like it meant anything at all. Wynton has no voice and no presence. His music sounds like a talented high-school trumpet player to me."


In 1986, in Vancouver, Miles Davis stopped his band to eject Marsalis, who had appeared onstage uninvited. Echoing Clarke's comment, Davis said "Wynton can't play the kind of shit we were playing", and twice told Marsalis to leave the stage saying "Get the @#$ off."

Wow, to be dissed so hard by those three marvels of jazz ... Wynton must have a hide like a rhino not to seriously question himself. Lester's comment is great - if you retread then all that's left is to polish the music up to an ever brighter sheen, which is cool in its way, but you can't say goodbye to the confronting, nasty, raw side of things. You can't go telling people what they should and shouldn't play - we all have to go to hell our own way or, in some cases, our teacher's way.

The Keith diss is too harsh IMO - I thought that the Wynton vid in the OP was great. I didn't know he could be that cool - I thought he was all about classy old time. Still what Keith said is no worse than what WM's been saying about people like Keith. Tit for tat. Oh well. I bought a Keith DVD a few months ago with Jack D on drums and it's magic. I've played it heaps and can forgive Keith anything at the moment. Jack didn't thrill me in a few records I'd heard in the past but on this DVD he plays with a ton of fire - like Elvin Mk II. His instinct for choosing the right note at the right time is genius. Sorry about the digression. The KJ quote made me think of the vid ...
 
I read your entire post, I just thought you were focusing too much on him as an educator and his blunders in that department and not enough on his compositions. Your main argument regarding his compositional work was that he isn't an important innovator, and perhaps he isn't due to the fact he plays it safe stylistically, but he still makes fantastic music.

You admitted he was a good trumpet player, that much is plain to see, but to say he doesn't innovate and that innovation is all that jazz is about is wrong. Perhaps it is the soul of jazz, but at the same time to say that something isn't jazz unless it is new is like saying jazz as a genre can't possible exist as anyone doing the same thing must not be making jazz. I view his work more as a homage to a particular style of jazz and leave the controversy out of it.

Perhaps he doesn't play free jazz or avant-garde but I don't understand what the issue is with the music he does create. Does every composition ever made have to be a revelation to be considered good. His orchestral Baroque work with trumpet is fantastic. He creates a lot of music that tells a story, that invokes a journey, I'm not saying others don't but I don't understand why you believe it is bad.

I certainly don't get where you are pulling that I have a negative opinion of musicians or educators who make contributions, I never once mentioned anyone in my post other then Wynton Marsalis. I understand that a lot of people dislike him, and I'm not saying they are all wrong, but he wouldn't be where he is if people didn't like his music, and isn't that what it boils down to in the end, he makes good music.

I certainly have tons of respect for a lot of great, innovative players and composers doing their own thing. I did say quite clearly that making the music you like to make regardless of what you think is the way to go. I make a mixture of depressive black metal and post rock, I don't believe it is wrong, regardless of how non-commercial it is. That doesn't mean that if I think my friends might enjoy listening to a band I like, I don't try expose them to it. If exposing a younger generation to a style of music helps foster future innovators and extends the genres longevity how is that a bad thing.





Did you read a single word I posted?

Man, I've liked you on other threads, but it appears as if you retained nothing from a very detailed post. Again... and I cannot make it any clearer than this. Those seriois musicians I mentioned absolutely do not care what others think about what they're doing or other's personal opinions of them. That's just a fact. Yes it may be unfortunate that you have such a negative opinion of musicians and educators who made actual contributions who would question this person based on actual facts and real observations/experiences. My old man used to hang with those guys. My grandfather used to play with Ellis/ the class of that family/ They know the real scoop and I'll take their word for it alongside the obvious lack of innovation alongside a genuine ability to perform on a trumpet.
 
I read your entire post, I just thought you were focusing too much on him as an educator and his blunders in that department and not enough on his compositions. Your main argument regarding his compositional work was that he isn't an important innovator, and perhaps he isn't due to the fact he plays it safe stylistically, but he still makes fantastic music. .

Ok Listen to Blood on the Fields /the Pulitzer winner/ then listen to Ellington's Black Brown and Beige. I'll show you entire liftings of Ellington that go on uninterrupted and undisguised for 5 minutes or more. Yes, I agree that much of Blood on the Fields is really good. Ellington was a great composer.

You admitted he was a good trumpet player, that much is plain to see, but to say he doesn't innovate and that innovation is all that jazz is about is wrong.
Perhaps it is the soul of jazz, but at the same time to say that something isn't jazz unless it is new is like saying jazz as a genre can't possible exist as anyone doing the same thing must not be making jazz. I view his work more as a homage to a particular style of jazz and leave the controversy out of it. .

1. I hear Who Can I Turn To? I hear the Miles solo often note for note. When he plays Armstrong's DinahI hear the Armstrong solo note for note from the famous 1931 film. Close to entire solos from his second album were lifted Freddie Hubbard solos from Blues and the Abstract Truth. No I am absolutely without a shadow of a doubt not wrong to say that he doesn't innovate. He doesn't...that's it. These things are beyond debate.

2. No one said that paying homage was not important. In fact it is part of the historical referencing issue. I said that you don't get to claim the savior gimmick when you're not an innovator because in jazz individual innovation reigns supreme. And on that score maybe I was not clear enough. Genres are a different ballgame seeing as how there are many ways to individually innovate within a chosen genre. But no, talented mockingbirds don't get to be head dog. In fact this is the very first time anyone was even arrogant enough to pull this one. Your homage to the music reference is also a tough defense to sell. Are you aware that he sends minions to educational organizations to strong arm guys into altering textbooks and teaching strategies? You actually have a guy trying to force feed the jazz historical canon on the next 1000 years of history, while Stanley Crouch and Albert Murray hand him talking points. It's sheer nonsense.

3. You can't ignore the controversy when he's the guy bringing it to the table. But he loves it when intelligent well meaning guys like yourself say I leave the controversy out of it. It makes his job a lot easier.

Perhaps he doesn't play free jazz or avant-garde but I don't understand what the issue is with the music he does create. Does every composition ever made have to be a revelation to be considered good?.
Re: your last question...No but at least one to handful have to be. Re: your first question see above. And avant garde was never brought into this discussion, nor does playing such music make one a trend setter or an innovator.

His orchestral Baroque work with trumpet is fantastic. He creates a lot of music that tells a story, that invokes a journey, I'm not saying others don't but I don't understand why you believe it is bad. ?.
I never said his classical work was bad. In fact I think his playing of the Hummel from that first album is excellent. But what music are you saying was created there? I thought the Hummel Trumpet Concerto was composed by Hummel. Now if you're saying his improvisations tell a story, then yes I will agree with you. Freddie Hubbard was a great trumpeter, making him an excellent person to copy. but again those ideas belong to Hubbard, not the guy copying him. And it's too bad he no longer plays classical music. But when he walked away from that Bach Strad and started using those goofy French trumpets with the mouthpiece already built in, even most of his most diehard disciples will admit that a lot of that celebrated tone of his went with it.

I certainly don't get where you are pulling that I have a negative opinion of musicians or educators who make contributions, I never once mentioned anyone in my post other then Wynton Marsalis. I understand that a lot of people dislike him, and I'm not saying they are all wrong, but he wouldn't be where he is if people didn't like his music, and isn't that what it boils down to in the end, he makes good music. ?.

Man this Marsalis thing is the most polarizing thing that's probably hit music since Beethoven brought the extra notes back. You're either on one side or the other. And yes I know that in this bizarre historical period when all opinions are equal and there is no good/bad or right /wrong people don't like to take a stand. But when it comes to this guy, when you stand in the middle of the road, the only thing that happens is you get hit by a truck. He punks the real educators and historians while his goofy yes men try to run you off any jazz forum where you dare offer this very popular perspective. I watched Jazz at Lincoln Center employees pretend to be unafilated objective Marsalis enthusiasts on jazzcorner forum for years. This is really an issue much deeper than you imagine.

I certainly have tons of respect for a lot of great, innovative players and composers doing their own thing. I did say quite clearly that making the music you like to make regardless of what you think is the way to go. I make a mixture of depressive black metal and post rock, I don't believe it is wrong, regardless of how non-commercial it is. That doesn't mean that if I think my friends might enjoy listening to a band I like, I don't try expose them to it. If exposing a younger generation to a style of music helps foster future innovators and extends the genres longevity how is that a bad thing.

Before I finish Frost, let me say one thing. I just stated a philosophical viewpoint close to universally shared by a huge number of the greatest jazz musicians. And for the record, I often view the intransigence of jazz criticism and the musician culture harsh. For this reason I also try to embrace a number of genres outside of jazz because to be honest with you I often need a break from the tension of it all. but when it comes to this Wynton M. thing I do see the issue, and I hope I succeeded in explaining myself fully.

I think you're a very intelligent guy and an interesting read. But on this one thing we're going to have to stand in another place. Some things are beyond consensus and this is one of them.
 
I don't think we are completely at odds on this point, we are not exactly debating known facts here, I'm not saying you're wrong, the difference is, you care quite intensely over it, jazz is a secondary interest for me musically, it was part of my education but I don't live and breathe it.

While you really dislike the guy, I am merely ambivalent, but I know that I enjoy listening to a lot of what he makes, original or not, I enjoy it. I'm not sticking up for him as an educator, I'm not debating any of the issues you've brought forward in this thread, frankly I'm out of my depths trying to argue this even if I wanted to as I am not versed enough in jazz society. If we were debating Bathory's importance in early 90's extreme metal it would be another matter, but we are not.

Thank you for the compliments, I respect your opinion and viewpoint, this is obviously one can of worms I never should have opened.


Ok Listen to Blood on the Fields /the Pulitzer winner/
then listen to Ellington's Black Brown and Beige. I'll show you entire liftings of Ellington that go on uninterrupted and undisguised for 5 minutes or more. Yes, I agree that much of Blood on the Fields is really good. Ellington was a great composer.



1. I hear Who Can I Turn To? I hear the Miles solo often note for note. When he plays Armstrong's DinahI hear the Armstrong solo note for note from the famous 1931 film. Close to entire solos from his second album were lifted Freddie Hubbard solos from Blues and the Abstract Truth. No I am absolutely without a shadow of a doubt not wrong to say that he doesn't innovate. He doesn't...that's it. These things are beyond debate.

2. No one said that paying homage was not important. In fact it is part of the historical referencing issue. I said that you don't get to claim the savior gimmick when you're not an innovator because in jazz individual innovation reigns supreme. And on that score maybe I was not clear enough. Genres are a different ballgame seeing as how there are many ways to individually innovate within a chosen genre. But no, talented mockingbirds don't get to be head dog. In fact this is the very first time anyone was even arrogant enough to pull this one. Your homage to the music reference is also a tough defense to sell. Are you aware that he sends minions to educational organizations to strong arm guys into altering textbooks and teaching strategies? You actually have a guy trying to force feed the jazz historical canon on the next 1000 years of history, while Stanley Crouch and Albert Murray hand him talking points. It's sheer nonsense.

3. You can't ignore the controversy when he's the guy bringing it to the table. But he loves it when intelligent well meaning guys like yourself say I leave the controversy out of it. It makes his job a lot easier.


Re: your last question...No but at least one to handful have to be. Re: your first question see above. And avant garde was never brought into this discussion, nor does playing such music make one a trend setter or an innovator.


I never said his classical work was bad. In fact I think his playing of the Hummel from that first album is excellent. But what music are you saying was created there? I thought the Hummel Trumpet Concerto was composed by Hummel. Now if you're saying his improvisations tell a story, then yes I will agree with you. Freddie Hubbard was a great trumpeter, making him an excellent person to copy. but again those ideas belong to Hubbard, not the guy copying him. And it's too bad he no longer plays classical music. But when he walked away from that Bach Strad and started using those goofy French trumpets with the mouthpiece already built in, even most of his most diehard disciples will admit that a lot of that celebrated tone of his went with it.



Man this Marsalis thing is the most polarizing thing that's probably hit music since Beethoven brought the extra notes back. You're either on one side or the other. And yes I know that in this bizarre historical period when all opinions are equal and there is no good/bad or right /wrong people don't like to take a stand. But when it comes to this guy, when you stand in the middle of the road, the only thing that happens is you get hit by a truck. He punks the real educators and historians while his goofy yes men try to run you off any jazz forum where you dare offer this very popular perspective. I watched Jazz at Lincoln Center employees pretend to be unafilated objective Marsalis enthusiasts on jazzcorner forum for years. This is really an issue much deeper than you imagine.



Before I finish Frost, let me say one thing. I just stated a philosophical viewpoint close to universally shared by a huge number of the greatest jazz musicians. And for the record, I often view the intransigence of jazz criticism and the musician culture harsh. For this reason I also try to embrace a number of genres outside of jazz because to be honest with you I often need a break from the tension of it all. but when it comes to this Wynton M. thing I do see the issue, and I hope I succeeded in explaining myself fully.

I think you're a very intelligent guy and an interesting read. But on this one thing we're going to have to stand in another place. Some things are beyond consensus and this is one of them.
 
Marsalis came up at a time when the great heritage of jazz was seen as a past occurrence, when great innovators like Armstrong, Duke and Parker were gone. He blamed it on the over-commercialization of music, like everyone did. And there is some credence to that.

In New York, in the 1950s you could go into clubs and they would be jamming until three or four in the am. Everyone was high and the smell of reefer filled the air. Never mind those dodged up on junk. You could be at a gig and Byrd, Diz or Coltrane would walk in and just start playing. Now you go in to the club, have dinner, hear a set, pay your bill, and make it home before 10pm. If you stay the whole night, you can spend $150-200.00. There's big money in it. You can still get some of that experimentation; but you have to know where it's happening.

I liked his early stuff, someone mentioned Black Codes from the Underground, and his playing with Herbie and Blakey. But then he just got too old, too quick. Truthfully, I never found his classical playing to be very moving. He saw/sees the music as a black expression, and there is a undertone of racism and African Nationalism that has underscored his belief. There was a time when his orchestra was all male, all black. That has changed.

What he is doing is bringing jazz into line with the western heritage of music, like Ellington, Billy Taylor and John Lewis had done before, though I wouldn't compare him to those musicians. In that sense, it can be integrated into that process. It is a part because European composers like Stravinsky, Weill, Milhaud were influenced by it. And American composers like Gershwin, Copland and even Elliot Carter saw it as a fundamental to the compositional process. You have musicians who are overly commercialized like Ramsey Lewis, Bob James or Kenny G. Then you have the guys who are just out there playing like Vijay Iyer, Joe Lovano, Dave Liebman or Joshua Redman and putting out good albums. But you have guys like Jason Moran, Brad Meldhau and Ethan Iverson who are finding that blend or composition and free jazz. All those guys are really doing that.

Marsalis has a very limited perspective on jazz; but it is also a perspective that many have adopted to some degree. It's uptown jazz. Jazz with a mink coat. I don't mind it; but I don't prefer it. There was a time when he railed against Free jazz and fusion saying that is was not really jazz. It's a bit different now because he's had Ornette Coleman and John McLaughlin to visit at JALC. I've heard people whom I respect call him a modern day Beethoven. He must pay them well to play at that Theater.

I went to the theater once, to see John Mclaughlin. It is not acoustically sound. Dizzy's club is really nice because the band plays on a band stand that overlooks Columbus Circle. There is a statue of Columbus and Central Park in the background. You can see the the Big Yellow taxis going by with the red taillights. It's certainly a place where the history of jazz is celebrated; but not a place where innovation will take place.

You have the boppers in the 50s, the politicians and political activists of the 60s, the rock stars in the 70s and the software innovators of the 80s and early 90s. What is captivating the idealism of young people today? I love this clip. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CrgzpPvJxmQ&feature=player_embedded
 
Back
Top